For most people browser standards and video enhancements are a result of buying a new computer which just seems to automagically resolve itself to the latest and greatest. Frankly, that is how it should be. Updating plugins and downloading special applications is hard enough for the geeks to stay on top of, let alone those that just want the $%#& computer to work.

HTML5 addresses this issue. Rather than being nagged to update to the latest version of "XYZ" software, HTML5 will take care of this at the geek level, (those who build pages and portals).

HTML5 can do some pretty amazing things and as a result the technical wizardry is light on the computer processor, meaning it takes less computing power. This means your smart phone will be even smarter and faster!

Now Video is another story: The brilliant people who set the standards for web speak (the protocols such as HTML5) could not agree on a video standard, so they have left this to the market to sort out. What we do know is that plugin for video is now a dirty word, this means all those applications you have diligently updated are becoming obsolete. Yet there are billions of dollars at stake, so let's follow the money trail and meet the players:

Adobe: The one's who brought you Flash and pretty much powered YouTube

Microsoft: Windows Media Player, no one really wanted it but Real Player made a fatal marketing error and lost a 90% market share to WM Player.

Apple: Quicktime, (mov) the Mac Heads have always argued that QT is where it was at but 85% of the PC population disagreed.

Others (codecs and players): Theora Ogg, DivX, VLC, mpeg. mp4, avi

So far the above is mostly technical baffle gab and meant as background nothing more. Here is the fun part; the war of the Titans.

Google: begins by indexing and making online video searchable and introducing Google video, it did not really catch on, so they bought YouTube and overnight became the largest video distribution network in history. At this point Google and Adobe are friends because YouTube runs on any browser or OS as long as you have Flash player.

Upsetting the Apple cart: iPod touch and iPhone signal a major change. These devices can access the web, play video as long as it is QT and in a bit of technical slight of hand one can watch YouTube video, which is supposed to be Flash based but it really isn't (too confusing to explain).

As iPod, iPhone and now iPad proliferate and literally change mobile device usage, there is a glaring omission. No Flash! No plans to incorporate Flash. Back to this in a moment:

Google: gets into the Operating System business (Windows, Mac, Linux etc) and announces Android OS. The market begins to take note as Google moves into the mobile phone space. HTC begins releasing The Google Phone, Nexus One and other versions with Android OS.

Another tentacle from the world of Google is the Chrome Browser, now a competitor to IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera and more. You can begin to see how the pieces are being put into place for Google to make one more major move.

Unbeknownst to many in the 'tech world" Google acquired a company called On2. This company makes a competitive video codec to QT, WMV, Mp4, H.264, On2 has a codec called VP8 The letters and numbers are not what is important, what is key however is the fact that Google now has all the parts to completely change YouTube as we know it, they can now compete directly with Microsoft at a browser and video level and with Android on mobile devices Google can go up against Apple.

Now let's get back to Mr. Steve Jobs and Apple's control of the media universe. Steve Jobs has made a public statement regarding Flash where he clearly states his opinion that Flash is dead.

...Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs April, 2010

For those following along at home; Apple has just fired more than a warning shot shot across Adobe's bow. Google as of May 19th announces that the acquisition of On2 and the VP8 codec is now called WebM and is open source to the development community. This means royalty free usage of the video standard.

More confused? Hopefully this will bring it all into perspective.

Apple via Safari browser has fully embraced HTML5. Firefox is fully supporting HTML5, Microsoft announced IE9 will fully support HTML5, so have Opera browser and of course the leviathan Google is HTML5 ready with Chrome. So I think we can safely conclude that HTML5 is on it's way to a browser near you. What we have still not settled is what video standard will HTML5 settle on. Remember the brilliant people who determine the direction of where the web goes, did not agree upon a video standard. They left this to market forces. So you have all the players, you now have all the background, let's make the final arguments.

Apple and Microsoft support the video codec H.264 aka MPEG-4. They can do this because both companies have the financial resources to pay for the ROYALTIES associated to H.264 licensing.

Mozilla Firefox (a free browser) can ill afford to bundle H.264 and absorb the cost of license, neither can the Opera browser. So who might these guys hitch their wagon to? Why Google of course. Google has offered WebM as open source, no license fee, this works for the free browser guys.

Where is Adobe Flash or FLV in all of this? No where according to Apple, Microsoft by not endorsing FLV or Flash has effectively made their position known. Google will do the talking by changing YouTube over to WebM, so all those companies invested heavily in Flash are now on the defensive - big time! The other less obvious casualty is Microsoft's Silverlight. You may hear some rumblings about WMV and the Expression encoder but HTML5 has all but killed it. No matter how you want to argue the point the sands have shifted and the most powerful forces affecting the Internet have clearly defined the new rules.

So the last act now plays out:

H.264 Vs WebM

Apple has not made a public statement as to whether they will support WebM in Safari and on the i-Devices. But frankly it is just too big a fish to ignore. I is in all likelihood only a matter of time and Apple will embrace WebM as an alternative to H.264.

What will turn the tide will be the adoption of WebM by hardware manufacturers. This is where and why many of you will never even have noticed that the battle for online video was waged right in front of you. When you buy your next HDTV it will have software built in to enable Internet video to play seamlessly, no plugins to download or firmware versions to update or chips to hack, just beautiful and logical human to technology interface with friendly devices like your good old TV remote. You will plug in an Internet cable or a wireless stick and surf between Cable signals and Internet video. Welcome to the billion channel universe. For a while, some video will be H.264 and other video will be WebM. Both H.264 and WebM will run on HTML5 right to your TV, Desktop and Smartphone. Eventually the market will push a single format to the top as it did with Beta Vs VHS and HD-DVD Vs BluRay. What you will not see in a few years is the nag for a Flash Player update, or Silverlight version 11. These will go the way of Real Player and become a faded memory.

So for many if not most of you; Why care? The geeks will take care of things for you and online video will simply evolve.

Do you care? Perhaps not. However those who are invested or are investing in online delivery, should be aware that you now must choose very carefully. Beware of those with heavy financial interests in technology that Internet evolution is bypassing. Some of the biggest providers will need to rapidly evolve or face extinction. This means significant investment and wholesale changes in the way things are done. Some companies saw this coming and have gotten out ahead of the curve, this too is evolution, so there will be changes and shifts with the leaders and providers. Choosing the biggest from the past does not mean you have chosen the best. You may be better off to work with the brightest people and a company that has embraced change.

Now you know the truth and can make an informed decision. I hope that this has cleared up some confusion and pointed you in the right direction.

Dave McIlroy

Before you sign a contract so that you can subsidize the mini computer wrapped up in a phone, you may want to give some thought to video. Many clients have approached me and asked why an Internet Broadcast I was streaming live would not play on their iPhone. The answer has a few possible reasons but most likely the format of the live stream could not be recognized by the phone itself.

If you have a newer device like the iPhone, Droid and others, you will certainly be able to watch YouTube but YouTube is not live. If you are trying to view Flash you are most likely out of luck. Apple made it perfectly clear that i-stuff would not be running Flash. Droid and the Nexus One which uses the Google Android operating system are supposed to able to use Flash 10.1 but there are reports to suggest all is not going well with this deployment.

So what does one need to do?

Keeping in mind that we are talking about live video streaming to the phone over a data network (mobile 3G or WiFi) not a file downloaded to the memory. Most newer phones can play video within the phone browser, provided the source file is H.264 You will most likely need to get an app for the iphone or Android via their respective stores / markets. While this might work for big brand video such as CNBC news or CBC Hockey Night in Canada, it won't always work for the Little League game from the local ball diamond.

The solution for this is HTML5. A big footnote to this is that the phone browser must be able to read this new standard. Safari, Opera, Firefox, and even IE 9 will be able to understand HTML5, but these browsers are not always installed in your phone. So in response to this, Google has built the Chrome Browser which Android can understand. Chrome 5 or better supports HTML5, so it would seem likely that a video provider publishing H.264 to HTML5 would be the ideal solution.

Well before you run out and buy a Droid, Nexus One or HTC brand phone you may want to wait until after May 19th. Google IO is expected to be a watershed moment for online video. This is assumed due to an acquisition Google made recently where they purchased On2 and the VP8 codec. The announcement all are anticipating is that Google is releasing VP8 to the open source community. Meaning the codec VP8 would be royalty free unlike, H.264 which requires a licence from MPEG-LA.

What all this means to an average phone user: Remember VHS Vs Beta / Blu-Ray Vs HD-DVD? Well VP8 and H.264 is the same. To make things even more confusing, Flash and HTML5 developers are hedging bets on what emerges as the more popular publishing platform. One thing is for sure, open source leads development toward cool technology. A proprietary system like we knew Microsoft to be and what Flash and Apple have become, is great for shareholders but it stagnates development. This time around there is a might big fish in the pond and that is Google. As we start to integrate Gmail, Chrome, YouTube and other Google assets into our daily lives, we vote for open source but... And it is a really big BUT, do we trust Google to "do no evil"?

Likely by the time you have read this, something new will have appeared on the landscape. If that new thing has any chance of adoption it must be accessible to the largest possible user base. With Android phones outselling iPhone last quarter and RIM playing catch up, it looks like it might become a two horse race. If Google can get enough content providers and device manufacturers to back VP8 then we are in for an amazing finish in the mobile video stakes. The only downside at the present time is your ticket to bet (the phone you buy) which will cost you $600. If you have to money to spare take your pick. If you plan on buying a phone that will last you two or three years, then hang on a few months.

But come back to my blog and I'll give you as much insight as possible - Stay tuned.